Indeed, one only has to look at the rhetoric extremists have used since the military conflict with Iran to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories and to call for violence against Jews. We found that the rebranding of Operation Epic Fury — the official name of the US military operation in Iran — as “Operation Epstein Fury” generated more than 91,000 mentions on X from more than 60,000 unique authors in just a few days.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
The fact is that antisemitism has manifested in different ways over the years. It has come from the left and the right, the religious and the secular, the street mob and the online influencers. But the commonality is that Jews have always been blamed. Regunberg can certainly hold his views on Israeli actions and policies, but pointing his finger at Jewish institutions and the wider community won’t make the world’s oldest hatred go away.
Samantha Joseph
Regional director
ADL New England
Boston
Sweeping rhetoric does not elevate debate
Arguments built on sweeping rhetorical claims, such as “There is nothing making Jews in America less safe today than the actions of Israel’s far-right government,” require scrutiny. Addressing the many flaws in Aaron Regunberg’s piece requires more space than a letter allows.
One example of an assertion that does not withstand examination: that “the majority of mainstream Jewish institutions” have been “aggressively declaring that criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism” and stating “that being a Jew in good standing in our community requires undying support for the state of Israel.” In fact, many mainstream Jewish organizations rely on a framework that explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
There is, of course, plenty to debate about the strategies the Jewish community ought to take amid rising, virulent, and violent antisemitism from across the political and ideological spectrum.
But at a time when public discourse is increasingly flattened into absolutes, we should be wary of arguments that reduce complex communities to binaries and caricature. Blaming Jewish institutions for violence against Jews does not elevate debate; rather, it amplifies a narrative that has long endangered Jews.
The Boston Jewish community and the Globe’s readership deserve better.
Jeremy Burton
CEO
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston
Boston
Jews who oppose Israel’s actions must make their voices heard
I applaud Aaron Regunberg for his essay “American Jewish organizations are making a dangerous mistake.” Zionism and Judaism have been conflated for decades, and the growing discomfort with Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has contributed to antisemitic incidents. As Regunberg states, Israel’s policies do not and should not speak for all Jews.
I am disappointed that the author did not expound on ways that Jews who are uncomfortable with Israeli policies can take action to mobilize their respective Jewish institutions.
The focus needs to be on ending our financial and military support of Israel. Organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow are effective in large-scale protests, sit-ins, and and other demonstrations, and their work should be supported by Jewish institutions. Jewish clergy should organize synagogue members to urge their elected officials in Congress to end US complicity with Israel’s violence against the Palestinians. Coalitions can be built between Jewish institutions and Palestinian-led organizations to form a united antiwar front to make clear that not all Jews blindly support Israel.
The slogan “Not in our name” could unleash a powerful political force.
Mark Golden
Newton
When Jews are attacked, why must onus be on them to change their ways?
As a civil rights lawyer who has steadfastly opposed collective blame — from racial profiling to the Trump administration’s Muslim ban — I was dismayed to see another lawyer argue that, when Jews are attacked, it is Jews who must change their ways.
Aaron Regunberg first accuses Jewish groups of “aggressively declaring” that criticizing Israel “equates to antisemitism” and that they will abide Israel “no matter [its] crimes.” Jewish groups presumably would dispute that they’ve said any such thing. Regardless, Regunberg then implies that unless these groups retract their supposed declarations and instead endorse his views about Israel, people will “ascrib[e]” Israel’s conduct to “all Jews” — and then, I guess, massacre them?
That’s scapegoating and extortion, draped in the vocabulary of social justice. It’s warning Jews to change their politics because, to borrow from the gangster movies, “it would be a shame if something happened to you.”
If the man who attacked a Michigan synagogue this month had targeted Muslim worshipers instead of Jews, that would not be the right occasion to hector pro-Palestine activists about distancing themselves from Hamas. Yet that is the logic of Regunberg’s argument. It deserves no place in our response to discriminatory violence — against Jews, Muslims, or anyone else.
Matthew R. Segal
Winchester
The writer is a professor of the practice in the department of political science at Tufts University.